The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-05-18
The Press and Banner
Wednesday. May IS, 1887.
Married Women's Separate Estate in
Alabama.

A DISTINGUISHED member Of the South Caro-
lima bar, than whom there Is no Deller al'-
recently decided in the Supreme Court OF A.
ALBANIA. No case co1ld stand more complete
ly along side Of the recent decision IN w, oui
State as to the p1Hn!Ss HeSs haa cuts up by the
roots every device to use the separate estate
of the wife to secure the debt OF husoanu or
any other party 1t will be seen at once tna1
the most careful legal methods were pursued Pi', u
10 secure the purchase money by the pIedSing
of This separate estate; but the Alabama
Court brushed all the devices away as lesal
cobwebs and declared them all void: oo.
COLUMBIA, $. c., May II, 1871.
Editor Register: 1nasmuch as some new new spr, pa
pers profess to know more law IMAM 9ui ou
preme Court, and have been iai ratner niPse send
you the following case, recently deciaeo ,hn ~,
Alabama. February 4, 1887 as appears by inc
Central L,w Journal OF the 9th OF the PreSeh'
%MARRrEp WoMEN.-Separate statutory es-
tate Husbands debt. In Alabama mort,
gate by q married woman ana her nusoan9
Of her separate estate to secure MS oeou, ,,,en,
lowed by an absolute conveyance IN Pay'nem
thereof and q subsequent conueyGncf 20 u'e h'a.
band and a mortgage by the husband an" W 10y, aoge
to secure the purchase 1noney are ass 10 wo'a'
Heard vs. Hicks, S. G. Alabama, reuruals u
1851 South. Rep, $685."
We take the above from the Columbia Regis
Ten. The decision in the Alabama case re-
lorreQ 10 pIONco uOCLihS CIV "f 49, -
Carolina case. The Alabama case may nave
been decided according to law. But II ho''
two wrongs do not make one right. " hat we
contend ts, that the South Carolina case WAS
not decided according to the plain words OF
the constitution and the statutes. we nave
had nothing to say as TO whether law de-
priying woman of the right to mortgage her
property as security for her husband was
right or wrong. But we do say that decision
contrary 20 the law is wrong, and we oeheFe
that there can be no question at all tnat the
decision In the Rush case was wrong. we
further believe that such strained construc-
ton of a law whereby one class OF our people
are enabled TO cheat another, Is demoraiizing
to the Last degree, and calculated to Impair
public confidence in the administration oi
Justice In the State.
We thoroughly agree with the anderson IN
tellioencer In q demand for re-organlZatioh
of our Supreme Court. Our files Will prove
that the Press and Banner has heretofore ear
nestIy protested against any change In the
Courts. but the Rush decision, taken with the
former practice of granting bail to murderers.
of every degree together, make us ready
for o change.
The I,eeislature should take such steps
ss NAV be necessary to re-organiZe the
Court, so that our most vital interests may
not be 80 easily oyerrdden. We do not pre-
tend to say how the members of the Court
should be increased, but there is no doubt OF
the necessity for radical change in the
present administration Of justice in South
Carolina.
There Is an old superstit ion existing to the
effect that once judge, always judge. This
must be gotten rid Of The judges are presum-
ably put in office for the public good. "hen-
ever Judge fails to perform his duty fully
and acceptably he should be retired with no
more hesitation than if he were Governor.
The Office of Judge is no more sacred Than
that of Governor, and judging from the past
administration of justice we think lc"
changes might be beneficial to the public,
Let the Supreme Court be reorganized.